I pose this both as a question and a comment. The narrative surrounding Andrew Luck this season is that because the Colts are so bad in all other phases of the game (rushing, defense, etc), that Luck's mediocre TD:Int radio and completion percentage should be be overlooked. He has no other option except to throw the ball, and since defenses plan against this strategy, he will inevitably throw more interceptions and complete less passes.

If his team is indeed that bad, it should be impossible to win eight games. And yet, he continues to win. There are two possible explanations for this: either Luck is a transcendent player who is so good that he's able to overcome immense disadvantages to succeed (the Luck narrative), or having a bad rushing attack and a bad defense are not the immense disadvantages we perceive them to be.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the last two or three Super Bowl winners been at the very bottom of the league in rushing? And weren't both the Packers and the Patriots near the bottom of the defensive rankings (except in TOs) over the past few years?

If it's the case that you need not run or play great defense to win in the NFL, should we perhaps reconsider the Luck narrative?

There's an obvious element of hype, and the media (who don't understand football) can latch onto the defensive and rushing numbers as a sign that Luck is some otherworldy figure, but the truth is a bit more nuanced.

For one, defensive numbers can be skewed by a poor turnover margin, as Luck has turned the ball over 25 times total, which often puts the defense in bad field position or invites an aggressive playcall from the recovering team (teams tend to treat turnovers as free possessions and will often try to go for a deep play when they get one.)

With the struggles form the defense, the team will often find itself behind and forced to abandon the run in order to catch up. The Colts also don't work to establish the run like most run-first teams do, as they'll make a passive attempt early in the game before ditching it in favor of riding Luck. The corollary to this is that the running game gets few chances to pound opponents long enough to start breaking off long gains (most teams with the "run-first" cred don't actually start gaining large numbers of yards until the fourth quarter when the opposing defense tires out.)

Now, in Luck's favor is the fact that despite his high usage rate he's averaging a more-than-respectable 3.2% INT rate, which is only slightly above the league average of 3%. His fumbles have actually contributed to his turnover problems more than his INTs.

But the Colts are a better team than the one that went 2-14 last year. It wasn't devoid of talent, it just had been built almost completely around the expectation that Peyton Manning would be its quarterback, and without him the roster could not cover up the glaring deficiencies of Curtis Painter. Add in Andrew Luck and some nice draft pickups like Dwayne Allen and it becomes much more competitive.

But there is one major storyline that HAS to be extricated from Luck's legend: the media has vastly, vastly overrated his football IQ. He may eventually reach Peyton's level but he's not close to where Peyton was as a rookie. Luck still has a terrible habit of locking onto his first reads, a trait that has followed him from college, and while his pre-snap recognition is much better than the typical rookie his post-snap recognition is below that of Russell Wilson and RG3's. That's fine, it will come with time, but it irks me to no end that his constant mistakes are glossed over because it doesn't fit the "Andrew Luck is a quarterbacking genius" narrative the media saddled him with at Stanford and are forced to cover up the fact they haven't a fucking clue what they're talking about.

The game-winning play was a dumpoff to a wide open Avery who ran untouched into the endzone from five yards away, and came the play after Luck almost threw a game-sealing interception directly into double coverage. He's getting great press for what was an objectively terrible day for him. Neophytes can point to the W-L record, but that just proves the entire Colts team overcame a poor performance from their quarterback.

Now, to stem the inevitable tides of "hater" comments, please know that I think Andrew Luck has "franchise, future championship-caliber quarterback" written all over him. He has all the tools, he is genuinely bright, and he's a hard worker who will put his team in position to win many games. But he's not Peyton Manning, he's Andrew Luck, and the sheen of the former shouldn't override the luster of the latter, because they are rather different players, and while Luck is not in Peyton's realm in defensive recognition, he has a much better arm than young Peyton ever had.

Oh yeah, the narrative on Cam is actually closer to the truth this year than it is with Luck. He legitimately regressed at the start of the year (although the offense also got rammed in with the read option as base running scheme for some retarded reason) and only recently has started to get himself worked back out. He's done a terrific job lately of moving safeties around with his eyes, his second TD against the Chiefs came after he completely pulled the free safety off the play by faking to the right side of the field. But, woof, he was terribad for a stretch after the Atlanta game.

This pretty much correlates with how I feel watching Luck. Whenever you talk to someone and mention that he has mediocre stats and has been getting worse as the season goes on, it's like they take it as a personal affront and assume you're saying Luck is a draft bust. Luck has all the tools to be a really good to great quarterback. For all those reasons you stated, he has the potential to be really good. This year he hasn't been. THIS IS TOTALLY NORMAL. Peyton didn't win ROY, Brady didn't win ROY, Eli didn't win ROY, Rodgers didn't win ROY. We are so spoiled as fans this year because there is just a ridiculous number of rookies playing at an extremely high level. The QB class looks crazy right now, defensive players are tearing it up, a couple rookie RB's have over 1k yards. Personally I feel this is the most impressive draft I've ever seen. So far anyway. Just because Luck isn't playing as well as other rookies doesn't mean he's not going to be a great player.

Also, one thing to get off my chest. There is no excuse for throwing a high number of INTs. Great QB's just don't do it at a 1/1 ratio. In addition to that, if you're going to say to throw it out because of the number of passing attempts, then throw out his high passing yardage as well, because he wouldn't be close to the record if he wasn't throwing 50 times a game. Also fumbles are bad.

Brady, Eli Manning and Rodgers didn't even get meaningful playing time their rookie seasons, and Peyton had the misfortune of playing the same year as Randy Moss.

But I agree completely, this has been a stellar draft class. And you're right, great QBs don't throw INTs at such a torrid pace (especially in this era of offensive football) which is why Luck isn't a great QB, YET.

And when he blows away Cam's rookie passing record it should be noted that if Cam had the same number of passing attempts that Luck is on pace for he would have thrown for 5,308 yards last year.

Luck will be a great one with a little luck (haha, shoot me) but the narrative is a bit beyond reality at this point.

I wouldn't say there is "no excuse" for an INT ratio of 1/1. The excuse is that he's a rookie who makes rookie mistakes especially on the road. His TD/INT rate at home is something like 9/3 I think. Also, Peyton threw more INTs than TDs his first year as well.

Now, is he playing great all game, every game? Heck no. And for about 3 and 1/2 quarters against Detroit, he was playing pretty damn bad. Fortunately for the colts, the game is 4 quarters and there is no doubt that those last two drives were amazing. Yeah, the last TD was a little dump off but what you miss is him scrambling earlier in the drives to keep it alive.

It's not just that the Colts went from 2-12 to 8-4, it's that the colts have won 8 games with Luck leading a lot of game winning drives. In fact, he just tied Roethlisberger and Vince Young for most game winning drives by a rookie (5 ). Think about that. Five game winning drives from a rookie QB! That's the difference between 8-4 and 3-9 and that's why colts fans are excited about Luck.

Edit: And just one more thing to add. If you look at 3rd and long among the rookies. Luck really stands out. Luck, wilson, and RG3's completion rate for 3rd and 8+ is 41, 25, and 11 respectively. The narrative around Luck is that he's been clutch and the stats back it up.

I understand why colts fans are excited about Luck. I'm not debating his ability to be a good quarterback in the future. Right now he is an average quarterback and other rookies are performing more consistently at a higher level.

I would say, Lucky for Luck he was playing the Lions. ;)

I mean, we can pull individual stats out of Luck's stats and point out impressive things. But he's only had 2 really impressive games. The overall stats for RG3 and Wilson are better.

There is ample evidence to show that game-winning drives are as statistically random as any other football play, which is why even a player like Peyton Manning can go into hot and cold streaks in that situation.

First, you might forget but Vince Young won rookie of the year and went to the pro bowl his rookie year (replacing an injured Rivers). Just because he didn't pan out doesn't mean he didn't have a good rookie year so comparing Luck to Vince Young's rookie year is not an insult. However, if your point is that a good rookie year does not guarantee success then I would agree with you. Luck could be the next Vince Young or the next Elway, it's too early to tell, but what we can say is that he's having a good first year.

Second, to suggest that game winning drives is statistically random is ridiculous. Check out the list of career game winning drives. http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gwd_career.htm. Top 3 are Dan Marino, Peyton Manning, and John Elway. Tell those guys that game winning drives are statistically random.

Great post dude, I agree, he still has some kinks to work out which will come with time, I do notice the "lock-on" to the first read that he sees, as sometimes he passes to the receiver who isn't open, trying to force it a little. I agree that many might be over-hyping Luck, but I think that's to be expected with a 1st overall draft pick rookie QB who has his team in a position to make the post-season.

Luck doesn't have the mind-set (yet), but it's getting there and I think once he gets the right mind-set and minimizes turnovers, as well as gets more comfortable with his rookie receivers, then Luck will be as good as many are currently making him out to be.

Arians is doing the right thing to get him in that mindset, though. A QB's early years are meant to be full of mistakes, so you might as well as throw a talented guy like Luck out there and let him make the best of it. He's not going to collapse under the weight of turnovers, and he will learn much better and much faster as long as he doesn't let himself get stuck in bad habits (like the read-locking, something QBs like Tony Romo still gets in trouble with.)

Something Cam Newton struggled with a lot earlier this year is that teams basically took Steve Smith away from him (or tried as much as any team can) and he wouldn't move past his primary read fast enough to get to the other receivers. Once he started surveying the full field and getting other players involved, he could use his eyes to get defenders away from Smith or find him in single coverage and his play has improved dramatically.

Now contrast that with a guy like Aaron Rodgers, who kills teams by seemingly ignoring Jordy Nelson or Greg Jennings for play after play before hitting them when they least expect it, and in the process making teams fear Randall Cobb by targeting him repeatedly. Now defenses will start to key in on Cobb, and Rodgers has yet another weapon to manipulate defenses with.

When Luck's post-snap mental recognition catches up with his natural talents Colts fans are going to be having wet dreams for years.

yea, there was an article in bleacher report talking about how Arians puts him in the Colts offense that is better played by a veteran, the sole purpose is so that Luck can learn from his mistake, he's trying to shape Luck into a veteran player as a rookie

Yep, I said elsewhere that it's a lot like the Chargers offense is right now, including the struggles due to lack of consistent running game and playmakers. But when you add those elements it will be consistently explosive.

That being said Ballard has been running the ball pretty well as of late and should be getting more touches. If for no other reason than to to give your defense a breather. (In the last 7 games, he has averaged over 4 YPC in 5 of them, and over 4.5 in 3) He only had 9 carries against the Lions.

ESPN actually has some PFF exclusive articles as part of their ESPN Insider subscription, and they're usually pretty good.

Mike Tanier of FootballOutsiders is also a decent read, and is man enough to admit when he's made mistakes in his assessments.

Pat Kirwan is one of the very few good ones at CBS Sports.

Doug Farrar over at Yahoo! Sports is pretty good, and Mike Silver is OK although he does that Peter King thing of bleeding his political views into his stories.

Matt Bowen of National Football Post does some nice work breaking down particular schemes or plays.

If you notice a trend with these names it's that very few of them engage in rumor-mongering or soft news. They're more interested in actual analysis.

I pretty much ignore any of the ESPN personalities, Mike Florio, Mike Freeman, Pete Prisco, and Peter King is only useful for the rare exclusive. Skip Bayless is dead to me, because although he actually has a decent understanding of football he chooses to ignore it in favor of taking contrary positions.

Time and time again, your posts far overestimate the value of these so called "post-snap" reads. These only happen in the option offense - once the ball is snapped in Arians offense, the only reads that Luck is expected to make is his pass target progression. There is no reading for blitzing players or checking out coverage to decide whether to hand off or play action, like in Washington, for instance. Those skills are not very valuable to an NFL quarterback because very few NFL offenses ask anything from their QBs that expect them to change the play after it's snapped. Even at the highest height of Manning's career, there was never any kind of QB option installed in Indianapolis, and he's arguably the best to ever play the position. If you're ranking CFB prospects coming out of college, who are expected to be able to properly execute the read option, then you are correct in giving so much importance to making option reads, but it's not something that's asked out of very many NFL QBs, and there's a reason why the ability to make option reads doesn't really ever show up on NFL draft scouting reports.

But the Colts are a better team than the one that went 2-14 last year. It wasn't devoid of talent, it just had been built almost completely around the expectation that Peyton Manning would be its quarterback, and without him the roster could not cover up the glaring deficiencies of Curtis Painter. Add in Andrew Luck and some nice draft pickups like Dwayne Allen and it becomes much more competitive.

The Colts returned 2 offensive starters and 5 defensive starters. Less than 30 of the players who were on the 2011 roster were on the roster in week 1 this season. It's less now: there are just 14 players by my count on the current roster that were on the final 2011 roster. When this is true and you say things like adding Andrew Luck to the 2011 roster makes it much more competitive and it just seems like you're completely ignorant about the actual state of the team and you're just saying things that you think are true. 39 players is the difference between 2011 and 2012 and you think that Andrew Luck was a piece plugged into a roster? Do you also realize we completely changed our entire coaching staff, defensive scheme (4-3 to 3-4), offensive scheme, and front office? The 2012 Colts may as well be a brand new team and you are just doing them - and yourself - a great disservice by suggesting they're riding on the success of Manning era talent. They're not; the only players that's really had an impact from the Manning era are Wayne, Costonzo, and Mathis. All of the other impact players are new acquisitions.

My other favorite thing about this post is that you attribute our terrible turnover ratio to Andrew Luck and completely ignore the fact that we're the worst in the league at generating takeaways.

It's almost like you've built this entire story about Andrew Luck by watching highlights and reading statistics, rather than actually watching the games and having any clue about the state of the team. You speak really convincingly, but most of what you say is wrong.

Post-snap recognition has nothing to with the option offense. You screwed up right out of the gate by assuming that's what I'm talking about. Post-snap recognition is determine how the corners are playing their coverages, whether the defensive scheme is bringing a delayed blitz, the effect the routes are having on the coverage and the pass progression.

I never said the roster was the same, and while that level of turnover is higher than the average team it's not unusual for a team in flux. My point is that skill pieces remained that were better than they showed last season.

Furthermore, I am beyond aware of the low turnovers generated by the Colts defense. They are having similar problems as the Gregg Williams-led Saints defense did in 2011, in that a lack of turnovers made a better than average defense that won the Super Bowl in 2009 become the mediocre outfit of 2011. But, while it is a detriment to the offense, it is not the sole culprit behind many of Luck's poor plays.

Finally, what the fuck do expect me to say when I'm simply interjecting some perspective? You want me to rehash all the terrific stuff we already know Luck does before I'm allowed to point out where he is missing the mark?

For fuck's sake, some of you Colts fans can go on some goddamn tangents when anyone dare breathes a word about Luck.

The normal rate of team turnover is 15-20 players a season, not 35-40. Of the skill position players that remained, only Mathis and Wayne have contributed. Bethea is having one of his worst seasons as a Colt, as Powers had his worst season as a Colt before he got placed on IR. There's almost nothing left from the Manning eras, but you outsiders see Mathis with a bunch of sacks, Wayne with a bunch of catches, and Freeney getting a lot of attention that he hasn't earned this season (both by defenses and the media) and you assume that it's skill positions from the Manning era that are contributing to the team. There's 2 skill position players that are contributing. Two. Do you want to rethink your statement at all?

And the post-snap problems you mention can be summarized up in: Luck sometimes locks onto his first pass target the entire time. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that you were making analysis that wasn't just wrong. That actually hasn't been as big of a problem for him in weeks, but it's still probably the weakest part of his game, which says a lot about the strength of the rest of his game. The rest of the things that he's expected to do after the snap - read the coverage downfield and make a good throw, be able to determine where the pressure is coming from and get out of it - he's done incredibly for a rookie. Watch some Colts games, he gets maybe 10 or 15 clean pockets in a game, yet he's incredibly adept at reading the pressure and getting out of it behind the LoS. He's also consistently throwing into coverage when the defense gets considerable pressure with rushing either 3 or 4 men, and while his completion percentage isn't incredibly high (it's actually pretty good historically for a rookie QB), he hasn't had the benefit of a good running game that any of the other rookies have had - and you have to take into account that Arians has him throw downfield more than any other QB in the NFL. If you want to talk about his target progressions and his ability to excel after the snap and his efficiency, you have to do it in the context of the rest of his responsibilities and the rest of the offense. He'd probably have a 60%+ completion percentage if he was asked to throw behind the LoS as much as RG3 or Wilson or even Tannehill is, but he's not, he's asked to throw it down the field on every throw, and when outsiders come in and say "RAH RAH LUCK'S NOT EFFICIENT ENOUGH" it just sounds to the rest of us that you're not watching the games - and you're probably not, because you're not a Colts fan. You're gonna look at the stat line and see 53% and assume that means he misses a lot of passes when what it really means is Arians is intentionally NOT dialing up high-completion-percentage plays as part of Luck's developmental plan. It's exactly the same reason Manning threw so many INTs and had such a low completion percentage his rookie season because it's the same coach making the same decision.

You've been saying the exact same things about the Colts and Luck since the beginning of the season when the reality has changed, and your entire post sounds and is ignorant of the new reality in Indianapolis. Everything you said sounds like opinions gleaned out of highlights and statistics and anyone who's actually serious about understanding the future and reality of a team knows that that only gets you about 1/4 of the way there.

I've watched every Colts game (yay, Game Rewind.) I did a pre-draft profile on Luck. I am extremely familiar with Arians offense, especially since he used Roethlisberger in much the same way.

Furthermore, I never mentioned Mathis. I never mentioned Wayne. I was talking about Andrew goddamn Luck. And if you wish to make the statement that the 2012 Colts have almost completely different players than the 2011 squad, than are you implying they are actually better talent-wise? Because that doesn't actually help your case for Luck's greatness.

Also, Jay Cutler would kill to get the kind of pass protection Andrew Luck gets. Russell Wilson is pressured on a higher percentage of snaps than Luck. Cam Newton is right behind Luck, as is RG3. QBs can and do succeed in spite of pressure. Did you ever wonder how Peyton took so few sacks despite playing behind a declining line his last years in Indy? Because he knew how to get rid of the ball before the pressure got there. Yes, Luck has dealt with his fair share but you can't blame every goddamn thing on that.

Stop making my criticisms out to be more condemning then they are. You never answered my question: are you getting this riled up and bitchy because I didn't adequately suck on Luck's balls before offering up my counterpoint to the prevailing notions swirling around here?

I'm not trying to denigrate the kid, he's playing exceptionally well under the circumstances and for a rookie, but he's also being handily outplayed by other rookie QBs, and I'm not going to give him a fucking handjob just because Colts fans can't stand anyone pointing out anything even remotely adverse about their fucking quarterback. Fuck.

I need a to know how they define "Pressure" because I swear 50% of the time luck drops back he has to read the defense just right not to get sacked. It seems like 25-40% of his passes occur on the run and a lot of those he is moving forward, not going to help with his accuracy.

Pressure is defined as any impact on the quarterback that either causes him to hurry his progression or throw, forces him to move due to his own linemen or defenders moving into his space, to scramble from the pocket, or to take a sack or hit after throwing.

It does not include a quarterback stepping up into a pocket clear of defenders, as that is a typical and proper reaction for quarterbacks to delay pressure reaching them, or rolling out on designed bootlegs, as these plays allow the quarterback to throw the ball away before pressure arrives.

Finally, people tend to remember the bad plays more than the good ones, and therefore imagine that a quarterback is constantly facing pressure even if it only occurs once every four downs, because those instances may be strung together or occur at critical times.

Then luck is very good at making blockers miss by staying in the pocket. It is a disservice to how good he is at escaping "Pressure" when it doesn't take into account the one thing he has to do the most to escape pressure. I am not saying others dont do the same/better than him. I just believe it would be more realistic if it takes into account the number of times luck when on the run any direction.

That doesn't make any sense. If a blocker gets through the protection and Luck sidesteps him that absolutely counts as pressure.

If he merely steps up into the pocket (again, that's the phrase for this action) so his tackles can move defenders around him that doesn't count as pressure, because that is exactly what tackles are supposed to do and isn't remotely considered a pressure play for any professional quarterback.

By your definition if a quarterback has to move at all in the pocket he would be considered under pressure, and every quarterback would have a pressure percentage of 99.9999%.

I think it's also interesting that you hear about how much Luck has to throw down the field, but Wilson has a similar percentage of throws 20+ yards down the field and a significantly better stat-line on such throws. I believe RG3 has the worst stats of the three on these plays.

In the AFC: what do Cleveland, Miami, and San Diego all have in common? They all have a better point differential than the 8-4 Colts (-41). Despite the fact that Luck is a great player, the 2012 Colts might be the worst 8-4 team ever.

What makes a good division having the #1 wild card and #1 AFC seeding isn't good for a division. I am not saying that the colts aren't lucky with 8-4. They are still a pretty good team. What about the AFC West Broncos already clinched that one, or AFC east with the Pats. AFC north has Ravens and Steelers after that it drops off to the bengals then 60 feet of shit then you will see the browns. What is a good division in the AFC by your standards

This was certainly a weird analysis of Luck. Not sure what to make of it. I guess that you're suggesting that our defensive stats might be artificially deflated due to Luck turning the ball over, causing people to think that our defense is worse than it really is. Advanced metrics suggest that our defense is a bottom-five defense. I also think that we're on pace to set the record for "least turnovers in a 16-game season."

Then you say that Luck has less football IQ than Manning's rookie year, and worst post-snap recognition than RGIII and Wilson. That's an opinion that I've never heard before. Bizarre.

Then you discredit some of Luck's comeback against the Lions. Guy gets the ball with like a 1% chance of winning the game, and pulls it out. He's getting great coverage because there's not many quarterbacks that you can imagine pulling that off. In fact, with the collapsing pocket that he had every play, there might not be another QB that you can imagine pulling that off. Roethlisberger maybe.

Anyway, just a weird, weird post. You make claims that presume incredible knowledge of not just football, but the Indianapolis Colts (including the Colts circa 1998). Then you throw Dwayne Allen's name out as a way to explain away some of the Colts' surprise success. T.Y. Hilton certainly. But Allen?

I like Allen. A lot. I like Hilton too, but I was hoping the Panthers would finagle Allen somehow.

And never said the Colts defense was good. But there's a difference between "god-awful, historically" bad and merely mediocre, and how much of a detrimental impact it has on overall offensive performance. (Also, if you're going to cite "advanced metrics" you might want to actually link to them.)

And while the probability of winning that game may have been in the realm of 1%, that's assuming the Lions played anything resembling competent defense at the end of the game. Outside of Suh, the Lions secondary did a terrific job at losing the game, including dropping two potential interceptions.

This was a win similar to the efforts Tebow kept pulling out of his ass last year that everyone logically knew shouldn't have happened, but did anyways. Did that make Tebow a good quarterback? No. Luck played terribly in this this game, which is an irrefutable fact, and pulled it together only when the Lions started playing prevent (which prevents nothing but your own victory.)

The fact that you're not the least bit impressed with Luck's victory against the Lions suggests that you have some sort of agenda. Only 7 teams since 2000 have won a game down by 12 or more points with so little time remaining. And you and I both know Luck didn't go through both drives completing passes against soft zone coverage to wide open receivers. It wasn't a perfect game at the end, but again, it's hard not to force throws when you have a 99% chance of losing the game.

By the way, the TD to Avery was Luck's fifth read. Pretty good post-snap play. Andrew Luck is already a top-10 quarterback, and will be the best QB in the league in a few years. The fact that you think our W-L record points to a team overcoming their quarterback's deficiencies is so outlandish that it basically immediately discredits anything you have ever said about anything ever.

Forget that it says that Andrew Luck is playing better than Tom Brady.

There are nine names above Peyton Manning's, including Joe Flacco's.

I don't doubt that the statistics are accurate, but "WPA" seems like an inadequate proxy for a QB's value. For example, from a quick read of the definition, it would appear that if an omniscient Manning (which might be the real Manning!) were choosing pre-snap between a quick out he was certain would gain 5 yards, and handing off to his running back for a play that he was certain would gain 20 yards, WPA would judge him a more valuable quarterback if he threw the pass rather than audible into the run.

No, I believe that you have the right. If you look at EPA, that is Expected Points Added. That tends to even out things, which is to say, it doesn't weight doing well in a game-winning situation more than doing well in a normal situation. I would say that EPA is more reflective of in reality, who is a better quarterback. I like to look at both EPA and WPA and make my own decisions. Brady is #1 in EPA and probably playing the best of any QB right now. P. Manning would be #5. Flacco #16. Luck is #8. Interestingly, RGIII is #3 in EPA.

Do you not understand the difference between "historically bad" and mediocre? The Colts defense is bad, but it's not going to end up on any "all-time worst defenses ever" lists outside of the piss poor turnover margin (which is not uncommon even among decent defenses.)

suggests that you have some sort of agenda

Grow up.

it's hard not to force throws when you have a 99% chance of losing the game.

That 99% "chance" has no actual bearing on the game. The Colts weren't playing poker and holding to land a royal flush, they were playing football and had to execute the plays that were there. Luck had two passes that could have been interceptions. He could have had none. The situation did not dictate the outcome of those throws or his decision-making.

By the way, the TD to Avery was Luck's fifth read.

Avery was right in front of him. If he couldn't make that "read" then he should be checked for blindness.

Andrew Luck is already a top-10 quarterback, and will be the best QB in the league in a few years.

The first part tells me you're not remotely rational, the second is very possible, although not irrefutable as you seem to imply.

so outlandish that it basically immediately discredits anything you have ever said about anything ever.

Do you not understand the difference between "historically bad" and mediocre? The Colts defense is bad, but it's not going to end up on any "all-time worst defenses ever" lists outside of the piss poor turnover margin (which is not uncommon even among decent defenses.)

I'm not sure who you're arguing with here, other than a straw man, but it's not me. I never said we were historically bad. Just that we were very bad.

That 99% "chance" has no actual bearing on the game. The Colts weren't playing poker and holding to land a royal flush, they were playing football and had to execute the plays that were there. Luck had two passes that could have been interceptions. He could have had none. The situation did not dictate the outcome of those throws or his decision-making.

The situation did not dictate the outcome of Luck's decision-making? You're right. Guy shouldn't have been playing like he was down two scores, he should have been pretending like it was the first quarter.

Luck is playing very well with a terrible defense. The media looks at the Lions game and goes "Wow, this rookie came back from two scores with just minutes left in the game, including a minute-long TD drive from his own 25. That's impressive!" You look at it and go "He almost threw an INT, and Avery was wide open." Clearly you have a narrative, which is fine, because that narrative will be shattered eventually.

Your main point, which I wasn't even addressing, was that the media looks at the terrible numbers of the Colts defense and running game as evidence that Andrew Luck is amazing. Then you talked about how Luck isn't all that impressive. If you meant something different, write better.

Im pretty sure its hard to be an irrefutable fact that he played terribly when he didn't. He didn't play great no, he turned it over 3 times which is less than ideal. He also looked amazing at times, the win was nothing like one of Tebows win the lions did have some blunder before like Marion running out of bounds etc we should got the ball back and he drove the field like a veteran. Our defense is last in turn overs I believe, so they are hardly being deflated because of luck, I honestly think our defense is god awful. And if Luck was so bad at presnap reads what's up with his amazing ability to convert 3rd and long? If he zeros in on his first option certainly he wouldn't be converting such a high percentage of throws.

THE ENTIRE GAME COUNTS. Where the fuck do people get this idea from that the first three quarters are just an optional preamble to "when it counts?"

If the Lions had gotten one more fucking first down on their last possession then the entire scenario would have never happened! Are we supposed to praise luck for their incompetence too?

If Luck's passer rating was worse than Sanchez and Lindley, than I think that says all that there needs to be said about quarterback rating.

That wasn't based on their passer rating, that was based on their play-by-play grades as determined by people who do these things for their livelihood. And I love how these stats become "completely meaningless" the moment they say something people don't want them to say.

Fucking hell, people, I'm not killing the kid, I'm just pointing out the obvious to anyone who isn't totally homer-blind.

Stop painting opinions you don't like as agendas. Not everything is fucking agenda. I write football, analyze football, and have been around football for much of my adult life. I'm throwing out information that isn't part of the narrative. People can do with it as they wish.

No offense man but that's a pretty weak argument. You could say a lot of the same things about Tebow last year (I am in no way saying that Luck=Tebow). Luck will be a great one, there is no doubt about that but I'm not sure he's there yet. The rest of your team is a lot better than they're getting credit for but saying "Luck carries the whole team" is a better story for ESPN.

Now to address the inevitable conflict due to my flair. RGIII honestly isn't there yet either. He does make rookie mistakes and bad decisions, also he has a lot of support out there on the team. Again "RGIII carries the whole team" is a better story. I think part of the reason that you're seeing so much RGIII love is just that he's doing things different. People like different and exciting.

Dude, RGIII is an absolute beast and already an elite quarterback. I have no problem with people thinking RGIII is better than Luck, though I don't hold with that idea. I'm glad he's in the NFC, far away from us.

As someone who's watched every game I can say that the horrendous defense can not be blamed on luck. Most teams can basically score at will against them until the clutch which is actually where I think their d is great.

His point is that any defense will get worse over the length of the game if they are tired. Lots of interceptions and fumbles will always make your defense worse statistically because they will give up more yards and the potential to give up points, which even the worst team can do with one big play.

The Colts have also benefited from a very easy schedule. The only really good team they beat is the Packers, and they've been blown out by the Patriots, Bears and Jets.

I think part of the Luck narrative is due to the fact that the media has been going on about him ever since 2010 speculating if he would come out that year. I don't know how many times I've heard him labeled as the best prospect ever. Now we have other rookies playing just as well and in some cases better, so they feel the need to tip the scales in Luck's favor to explain that he is as good as they've been saying.

That said, Luck has been really good, and I have no doubt he'll have a long and stellar career.

Luck's majority of turnovers are coming on the road, while we are trailing to the Lions, Bears, Jets, Pats. 2-3 picks in each game, I believe.

Home: 12 TDs (rushing/throwing) 3 Interceptions - 293.0 YPG

Away: 10 TDs (rushing/throwing) 13 Interceptions - 306.3 YPG

We have only lost 1 home game, and it was on a 80 yard pass with less than a minute left after Luck got us the lead. We are a solid team at home, not so much on the road....our defense falls apart and we do turn the ball over more while trying to stay in the game. People need to understand Luck and the Colts probably have the worst starting position of any team in the league....we have forced a league low 8 turnovers (Browns forced that in one game). So we have to move the ball down the field and like you mentioned, our run game is around 22nd in the league at YPC. I also think Arians play calling is absurd and he refuses to call for dump off passes and running back screens to help Luck's completions and keep him healthy. And our receivers have a hard time getting separation. Luck is throwing way too much for my liking, but at the end of the day, it's hard to knock wins. So basically, when we are bad, we are really bad while trying to make something happen....when we are good, we are pretty efficient and win by a touchdown or so, because...if nothing else....Luck is very clutch and 6-1 in one score games, usually with him driving down the field with little time left. Second highest completion on 3rd and long at 42.4, 4th in the league on big plays > 25 yards.

I think you do need run game and defense to beat good teams consistently...the Pats won all their championships with good D and solid run game, none since they became a passing team (but still successful, I'm not hating, just an observation)...but since we have neither, we use Luck and take the interceptions as a consequence to our passing style, which is big play oriented. The defense plays well enough to keep us in the game and Luck and our receivers do the rest. Is it the best way to win? Probably not, puts Luck in bad positions and he gets hit a lot. But we aren't going to win on the ground, and our defense isn't getting us the turnovers we need. Our special teams has had one big play all year....we need Luck to get yards and get us in position to score, and he's good at that. We just need to get those turnovers down a bit on the road and we can become a lot more efficient team.

MY argument for Luck being really really good is he's a rookie, but he is playing like a pro. As he gets better and learns the NFL system and gets a better feel for the pass rush and speed of the defenders his TD-Int ratio and completion percentage will go up. I'm very high on Luck this year, because if this is how good he is this year, imagine how good he'll be in 4 or 5. If this were his ceiling, and I thought he wasn't going to improve from where he was right now, I wouldn't be particularly impressed, but the Colts would have a perennial starter.

Indianapolis is 18th in rushing yards and 20th in yards per carry, so their rushing attack isn't quite that bad.

Their defense is 21st in yards and 24th in points (which would be closer to 18th outside that New England game), so it isn't that bad either.

This team is clearly winning in large part to Andrew Luck's successes in the passing game, but the other parts are by no means gaping liabilities. I'd say "the Luck narrative" is one where a QB was expected to come in and immediately achieve greatness, and he's certainly done it. I don't think, however, it's a narrative where one guy alone is willing his team to victory when absolutely nothing else is going for them.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the last two or three Super Bowl winners been at the very bottom of the league in rushing? And weren't both the Packers and the Patriots near the bottom of the defensive rankings (except in TOs) over the past few years?

The last 3 Super Bowl winners have been Eli Manning, Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees. Obviously I'm not saying Luck is yet at their level, but it does show perfectly that a good quarterback play can overcome a poor run game and defense.

When Drew Brees won in 2009, his team was 6th in rushing yards on the season, 7th in yards per carry, and 3rd in rushing TD's. The Saints have a really underrated run game (they were amazing last season). It's a huge part of their offense. They scheme the run well, and then Brees heavily exploits the defenses efforts to stop it.

In 2010, the Packers had James Starks get healthy at the right time and become a pretty big surprise in the playoffs. He was a solid runner for them. Starks rushing stats in the playoffs:

Wildcard - 23 carries, 123 yards

Divisional - 25 carries, 66 yards

Conference - 22 carries, 74 yards, 1 TD

Super Bowl - 11 carries, 52 yards

In 2010, Football Outsiders stats say that the Packers defense was rated 2nd in the league. You're right about the Saints though, they pretty much just relied on their offense and forcing turnovers on defense.

The Packers in 2010 were at the bottom of rushing during the regular season, but had I believe the strongest running game through the post season; they also had the #2 or #3 defense and lead the league in interceptions . The Patriots of 2011 did not have a last ranked defense in points allowed. They were last ranked in yards allowed which isn't nearly as helpful a statistic, and middle of the pack in points allowed(and IIRC top ranked in yards/point) and did even better in the postseason

The rushing attack and defense are closer to middle of the road than they are bad. Luck is also pretty good for a rookie, I think he's only the 3rd best rookie QB, but that isn't to say he isn't playing like he has a few years under him.